Pages

Saturday, April 21, 2012

CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

Intactivists had known about about Vernon Quaintance and Gilgal Society for years. Intactivist groups had been trying to warn British authorities about this man and his activity, but it seemed this was a hot potato they wanted nothing of. And now, it looks like our prayers have been answered. According to this source, it looks like Vernon Quaintance has been finally caught in his tracks!

Who is Vernon Quaintance?

Why is this event significant? To all intactivists in the know, Vernon Quaintance is circumcision fetishist extraordinaire. The Gilgal Society is the worldwide NAMBLA of circumcision fetishism, and Vernon Quaintance is/was the head. Aside from heading the Gilgal Society, Vernon Quaintance was also a moderator at Circlist, another social group for circumcision enthusiasts, which has been around since the dawn of the internet, as well as a member of Acorn Society, another group of exactly the same nature. He was also a writer of erotic stories that include graphic descriptions of circumcising young boys while others masturbate.

The following is a piece of poetry written by Vernon Quaintance himself:

DecisionSome people claim that foreskins are funAnd keep the 'muzzle' on the gun.But many doctors do declare;'It's healthier with the glans laid bare'So, mum & dad, we say to you,You must decide what's best to do,Your son will benefit throughout his life,As, incidentally, will his wife;If you make the choice that's always wiseand do decide to circumcise.

(It must be noted, that the above prose was quoted by none other than Professor Brian J. Morris in the October 2007 issue of HPV Today, pages 12-13, who is also a prominent advocate of circumcision, particularly infant circumcision, a prolific author of circumcision "studies" and "appraisals," and also happens to be a very proud and prominent member of Gilgal Society.)

Correction:The poetry does NOT appear in the article on HPV Today. However Brian Morris still attributes it to Vernon Quaintance on his website, here. (Last accessed 4/23/2012)

Vernon Quaintance is also the owner of circinfo.com as well as gilgalsociety.org, websites which glorify circumcision and try to sound authoritative on the subject. The following quotes can be found on his website:

"Like the appendix, the foreskin is a remnant from our evolutionary past and now serves no essential purpose. Unlike the appendix, which is buried deep inside the abdomen, the foreskin is easily and safely removed as a preventative measure."

"An additional hazard of having a redundant foreskin is the ease with which it can get caught in a zipper. Many women complain of a lack of stimulation because a long or tight foreskin can stick to the walls of the vagina..."

It is now irrefutable that he has further interests in circumcision and youth than just public health.

Caught Red-handed

According to this source, police raided Quaintance's home on April 11 of last year, after receiving a tip-off. Movies seized included graphic footage of child abuse, which ranked at the second-highest level of severity. Of the five tapes seized,
three were found to contain indecent images. They comprise a total of
seven to nine hours. The children were estimated to be between 11 and 16 years old.

According to the report, Quaintance claims to have been celibate his whole life, and that he gained no sexual gratification of any kind from the videotapes, something the judge has a hard time believing, considering the fact that he had kept the videotapes found in his possession up until today.

Intactivists have known of this man's antics for years, and are relieved to hear he has finally been caught in his tracks. We can already guess what was on those videotapes.

What is Gilgal Society?

There are those on the Internet who have a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. Some call them circumfetishists. They gather in groups to discuss the erotic stimulation they
experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap erotic fiction and trade videotapes of actual circumcisions, and justify circumcision and their enthusiasm for it by wrapping it in pseudo-scientific jargon. Gilgal Society is one such group, based in the UK.

Other circumfetish groups exist, such as Circlist, Acorn Society, and the Cutting Club, and they openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members. Furthermore, there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys'
penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense
that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to
exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to
control it and the boy's future sexual life.

Vernon Quaintance is only the beginning. It ought to concern people that many prominent "circumcision experts" are members of, or closely associated with Gilgal Society, and/or other circumfetish groups. It ought to concern people that, groups such as Gilgal Society and Circlist are being referred to as respectable authorities on circumcision. Very recently, the New York Times actually dared to cite Circlist as an actual resource on circumcision.

Some circumcision "experts" would like their audience to believe that they are "objective," "impartial," and/or "dispassionate" authorities on the matter of circumcision, when, in fact, they are passionate circumcision enthusiasts, quite a few who are members of circumfetish groups, such as mentioned above.

Brian Morris

Brian Morris of the University of Sydney, Australia, is one of these individuals. Brian Morris is the most vocal circumcision promoter in Australia. Brian Morris is no expert on circumcision (though he likes to market himself as one, and the Australian media has swallowed the act, hook, line and sinker), but merely an enthusiastic
circumcision fanatic of long standing. He neither holds degrees (nor
genuine interests) in surgery, urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology,
and his field of study is only remotely related to medicine (he is a molecular biologist and professor of molecular medical sciences). He is in no
way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care,
nor disease prevention.

And yet, Morris is constantly producing publications for parents compelling them to circumcise their children, and the Australian media is constantly giving him the spotlight, oftentimes uncontested by any real authority on the matter. Furthermore, he is a prolific publisher of "studies" and "appraisals" of circumcision, which are basically Brian Morris quoting himself, and repeating inconclusive or flawed circumcision "research," and calling for the RACP to instate "mandatory circumcision" for all males in Australia.

Morris is also an outspoken member of Gilgal Society, and his name can be found in pamphlets, alongside the Gilgal Society logo. Two such publications can be seen here, and here. In one paper he wrote regarding circumcision devices, which was published in Biomedical Engineering, he actually collaborates with Circlist (methinks he invited them on-board his project), as if they were any sort of reliable authority on circumcision. I wonder if the University of Sydney is aware that their name is being used by Brian Morris to give himself, and the groups he associates with, an air of authority in the literature he writes.

Brian Morris also runs a website which he uses to promote circumcision. He does his best to market the website as a legitimate circumcision resource, but upon closer inspection, is really no different than Circlist's website. His website was at one point hosted on University of Sydney servers, but he was recently asked to move it elsewhere, as the University of Sydney found content on it that was inappropriate. We believe that the inappropriate content was a picture of a naked child, with a folding cellphone clamped onto his foreskin, dangling from the end of his penis, on the humor section of his website. (Be warned, it is rather tasteless, if not off-putting.) Clearly, an adult put the cell phone there and took the picture. The picture seems to still be there. (Accessed 4/22/2012) Brian Morris links to Gilgal Society, as well as eight other "recommended" circumfetish websites and he also includes a list of places to get circumcision devices. (For an in depth analysis of Brian Morris' website, go here.)

I have some wonderful photographs of a group of Masai boys in their
early teens that I met in Kenya in 1989 dressed in their dark
circumcision robes,
with white feathers as headwear, and white painted facial decoration
that stood out against their very black skin. Each wore a pendant that
was the
razor blade used for their own circumcision. The ceremony that they had
gone through is a special part of their tribal culture and was very
important
to these boys, who were proud to show that they were now ‘men’. In other
cultures it is associated with preparation for marriage and as a sign
of entry
into manhood.

What's interesting is that on many occasions Brian Morris has accused intactivists of having a fetish for the foreskin. One of Morris' most prominent traits is his incorrigible projection. The trash he talks of human rights activists against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is true of himself!!!

Jake Waskett

Robin to Brian Morris' Batman, intactivists have been keeping an eye on Jake Waskett for a few years
now, and we know him to be a circumfetishist who got himself circumcised in adulthood to fulfill a childhood fantasy. We have him on record confessing this to none other than Vernon Quaintance himself:

FROM: Jake H. Waskett

TO: Vernon Quaintance

SUBJECT: Circed at last

Hi Vernon
Thank you!
Yes, I recall our correspondence. I find it difficult to believe that I would regret
something that I've regretted *not* having done since age 5!... --Yahoo Circlist. Message #26333, 2003 July 30th

Waskett has since latched onto
the idea that circumcision of healthy individuals, both infant and
adult, can be justified by citing enough scientific "research."

Intactivists have
saved records of him exchanging on Circlist. He is also known to lurk
on parenting forums and news commentary threads, trying to convince parents to circumcise their
children (examples here and here), citing all the usual "research," when we know for a fact that
his true interests lie elsewhere.

Despite what is publicly known about him, Jake likes to portray himself as being "objective," "unbiased," and "dispassionate." His actions, however, speak louder than his words.

Why Wikipedia is an Unreliable Resource on Circumcision

Jake Waskett is a computer engineer who has been around since Wikipedia's inception. He is a favorite among the Wikipedia crowd, and he has used his clout at Wikipedia to make himself the sole gatekeeper on any and every article that has anything even remotely related to circumcision. He spends a considerable amount of time editing articles in Wikipedia to reflect a pro-circumcision bias (though he claims he's only making them "neutral"). As of early 2011, Waskett has made almost 14,000 edits on Wikipedia, more than 1,275 edits to the Circumcision article alone. Waskett's first edit to the article was on the 18th of October 2004, and his last edit was today. (You can monitor Jake Waskett's activity, here.) Waskett now averages about one edit every 1 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes and 21 seconds, for the Circumcision article. If Wikipedia appears to have a pro-circumcision bias, it is due entirely to this man.

Jake Waskett has full control of any and every page related to circumcision, to the extent that he allows or disallows whatever edits he desires. He likes to use the rules at Wikipedia to allow or disallow whatever sources he deems to be "acceptable." If the rules don't agree with his whim, he will actually bid to change them so that they do. He only allows sources that put circumcision in a positive light, however flawed and/or refuted they may be, but disallows sources that are devastating to circumcision. He does not allow others to post authoritative sources regarding the foreskin, or the flaws in circumcision "research," not even if they have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He will always find some sort of rule or reason why a paper or study that he doesn't like should not be allowed. Only his resources, or resources that support circumcision are "valid"; resources or studies that run contrary to his views are not. Jake Waskett quotes his own website, circs.org, as a resource on circumcision on Wikipedia.

Other intactivists have observed his activity on Wikipedia, and it continues, though it is seemingly against the rules on Wikipedia. He has been observed in shady behavior, such as getting people that can argue successfully against him permanently banned along with their IP, and getting clear rebuttals against him that reveal his ineptness stricken from the history record at Wikipedia.

All articles at Wikipedia related to circumcision are under Jake Waskett's complete control, and he only allows edits that suit his pro-circumcision bias.

For readers that would like to observe Jake's behavior first-hand, his Wikipedia profile can be found here. His latest edits can be observed here.

Jake also maintains his own pro-circumcision website, circs.org.

Are these the actions of someone who is "unbiased" and "dispassionate?"

Laymen Should Be Dismissed... Except For This One.

Jake Waskett is not a doctor nor medical professional of any kind. He
is a computer software engineer in his mid-30s, located in Radcliffe
Manchester England.
He is neither a surgeon, nor a urologist, nor a pediatrician, nor an
epidemiologist. He is no medical authority of any kind, and yet, his name is beginning to appear on scientific papers, as if he
were any kind of authority. His name appears in scientific journals any time Brian Morris' does. (This can be observed here, here, and here, though there may be other papers I don't list in this blog post.)

I speculate that, despite not being any actual authority, Brian admires Jake Waskett's pro-circumcision work on Wikipedia and on his own website. He is enamored by Jake's ability to clothe his circumcision bias in scientific jargon, that including his name on Brian's work is his way of paying tribute to one of his favorite circumcision advocates (which in turn feeds Jake's ego). As another example of Brian Morris' projection, he himself has accused intactivists of being nothing but lay people with no scientific authority.

There's more, lot's more...

It's relieving to hear that a known circumfetishist has finally been exposed for the pervert that he really is. But this barely scratches the surface; there's more, lot's more. The floodgates to the greatest medical hoax of all time are but beginning to collapse.

Look at the pamphlets put out by Brian Morris viz Gilgal Society (Two such publications can be seen here, and here.); you'll find the names of many prominent circumcision "researchers" and people who claim to be "experts" on circumcision.

Bertran Auvert, Robert Bailey, and Daniel Halperin appear as authors. These are some of the prominent men who are flooding the medical literature with "studies" that say circumcision "reduces HIV transmission," as well as other diseases.

Thomas Wiswell, author of debunked circumcision/UTI "research" that has been long dismissed by authorities such as the AAP, appears as an author on one of the Morris/Gilgal pamphlets.

Very recently, Brian Morris published another pro-circumcision paper where Jake H Waskett, Robert Bailey, Daniel Halperin, and Thomas Wiswell all appear simultaneously. An earlier such paper can be seen here, and although Robert Bailey does not appear in this one, it mentions "Jake H. Waskett is with the Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service, Manchester, England." This "service," also known as "CIRCS" is nothing more than the acronym to Jake's pro-circumcision website.

These are the people responsible for all the recent circumcision "research." These are the people shaping the WHO's opinion. These are the people to whom media outlets look to as "experts." These are the people to whom others look to as "authorities" on the subject. These are the people helping shape policy in California and Colorado.

Can they be trusted to provide "impartial," "dispassionate," and "unbiased" information?

Is this about "public health?"

Or is "public health" and "research" a front for something darker and more sinister?

How far does this rabbit hole go?

The world is about to find out.

Calling All Intactivist Wiki Editors
For the time being, Wikipedia is a lost cause. The truth will never be known as long as Jake Waskett is hijacking Wikipedia for his own agenda. As a direct result of Jake's activity, important and factual information is currently being
omitted from Wikipedia regarding human genital anatomy, and so concerned
individuals have felt the need to create a resource where this omitted
information can be found.

In response to the situation at Wikipedia, a number of concerned individuals have come together to create "Intactipedia" as an alternative wiki resource on the foreskin and circumcision. The objective is to archive all the information that Jake won't allow on Wikipedia, so that perhaps in the future, when he too is exposed, it would be easy to move information over to Wikipedia with the ease of Wiki markup language.

Please visit Intactipedia and help contribute, if not help shape its direction.

Disclaimer:
Some may argue that I am engaging in ad hominem. However, pointing out conflicts of interest is not ad hominem. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on ad hominem (4/22/2012):

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim
of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of
interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that
an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an
audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about
conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source.
Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment
of a conflict of interest is a problem.

There's a difference between those with a compulsion to cut children's genitals for cultural, religious and financial reasons, and those who actually get a sexual thrill out of it.

I would save the pedophile moniker for those individuals that have actually been caught with incriminating evidence. It looks like this man not only kept videos but also actually accosted underage youth. And not only did he accost underage youth, he also tried to involucrate them into his sick circumfetish.

Calling someone a pedophile is a serious accusation. Do not call someone a pedophile unless you know for a fact.

They get a monetary or religious thrill out of the mutilating behavior and in sexually traumatizing an infant even not knowing they are doing so they are in an unconscious and deep form of denial. These mutilations have been going on for over 26 centuries. That makes male genital mutilation a form of rape and part of a transmission of unconscious loyalty. A repitition compulsion disguised as a benefit! It most certainly is a form of pedophilia whether you can see that or not. Just look at the behavior of the sickest among us. A mohel who would suck the blood from the penis with his mouth! There is no difference when a doctor needs to manipulate a flacid penis of an infant in order to get it erect so the mutilation can take place! Barbaric behavior from the entire medical institution who take an oath to do no harm! Pedophilia has been institutionalized medically, religiously and legally against infant males!

Quaintance had already been publicly exposed, and his offending is intimately involved with his interest in circumcision.

"... Vernon Quaintance ... was much older than most of us, maybe in his late twenties or early thirties ... Having pulled over into a secluded car park ... he told me a joke ... the punchline involved some confusion between castration and circumcision. He then asked me if I knew what a circumcision was, to which I replied ‘No’. He then explained what it was. ... he made it seem ok for me to show him my willy, and seemed interested in determining how far I could pull my foreskin back, even gently trying to do so himself. ... He then asked if I wanted to see an example of a circumcision, which I understood to mean that he wanted to show me his willy. ... I blurted out that I had told my Mum that I would be going to confession ..."

The CP is the minor detail here (awful pun, yes). The most revealing bit is this: "Quaintance claims to have been celibate his whole life". A 68 year old VIRGIN has no place telling people what to do with their dicks!

Error: The above poem "Decision" does not appear in Morris' article in HPV Today 13 pp.12-13; nor is VQ mentioned in that piece. Morris attributes the poem to VQ @ http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_humor.html but this is obviously not a primary source, nor a credible witness.

Glen, I got this citation from circumstitions.com. I've had exchanges with the webmaster and he is a man of integrity. If information is mistaken he will correct it if we tell him. There has got to be a reason he gives such a finely detailed citation. I will contact him about the matter and ask where he got this reference. I'm sure if things are the way you say he will edit his website, and I will make the correction here.

At any rate, even if this citation is an error as you say, Morris still attributes the poetry to Quaintance on his website, and I would believe it given Quaintance's history, and Morris' close ties to Gilgal, of which Quaintance is/was.

Thank you for not only "outing" the sick pervert VQ, but also for revealing how much of circ advocacy is cyberconnected under the surface. And how these weird blokes manage to work their way into the pages of peer reviewed medical journals.

Finally someone had to tell the world who these sick people really are! These are speaking English non-grata persons, but I'm sure there are other sick circumfetichists out there in the world. They too must be exposed!

The Truth must be told as it is, plain and simple. People must seek the truth and educate themselves and stop being so naive and face the fact of the truth. Even if we don't like it "the truth is still the truth", I believe Gandhi said that.

I believe the person who is putting this J.W. guy in -medical- references is committing FRAUDE and should be sued for lying to the public by making a computer nerd pass as a Doctor.

I think -Intactipedia- must be promoted on Intactivists sites of all kind, web pages, video pages, etc. Spread the word!